Computational Intelligence 696i Language Lecture 6 Sandiway Fong

Computational Intelligence 696i

Language

Lecture 6

Sandiway Fong

Administriva

• Reminder:– Homework 1 due today (midnight)– Homework 2 discussed today

• due in one week (next Tuesday midnight)• submit to [email protected]

Administriva

– http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~sandiway/wnconnect/

• Graphical User Interface Versions (GUI): – As a Mac OS X application (wnconnect) – As a Windows application – As a Linux application

• Text-based User Interface Versions: – run under a (free) Prolog interpreter– As Prolog software compiled for Windows (SWI-Prolog)– As platform-independent Prolog software (prologwn)

without a GUI

Last Time

• semantic networks based around language– WordNet (Miller @ Princeton University)

• handbuilt (ad hoc) network of synonym sets (synsets) connected by semantic relations

• e.g. isa, part of, antonymy, causation etc.

• large-scale (and free) lexical resource– 139,000 entries (word senses) v1.7– 10,000 verbs (polysemy 2)– 20,000 adjectives (1.5)

Last Time

• semantic networks based around language– WordNet (Miller @ Princeton University)

• handbuilt (ad hoc) network of synonym sets (synsets) connected by semantic relations

• e.g. isa, part of, antonymy, causation etc.

• Example (Semantic Opposition):– an instance of the frame problem– John mended the torn/red dress– mend: x CAUS y BECOME <STATE (mended)>– John CAUS the torn/red dress BECOME <STATE (mended)>

– antonym relation between adjective and the end state

Semantic Opposition

• Event-based Models of Change and Persistence in Language (Pustejovsky, 2000):

– John mended the torn dress– John mended the red dress

• what kind of knowledge is invoked here?– can exploit the network

– or– GL Model

• Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky 1995)w

Two Problems

– linguistically relevant puzzles– outside syntax

1. Semantic Opposition

2. Logical Metonomy

Logical Metonomy

– also can be thought of an example of gap filling – with eventive verbs: begin and enjoy– Pustejovsky (1995), Lascarides & Copestake (1995) and Verspoor (1997)

• Examples:– John began the novel (reading/writing)– John began [reading/writing] the novel– X began Y X began⇒ V-ing Y

– The author began the unfinished novel back in 1962 (writing)– The author began [writing] the unfinished novel back in 1962

Logical Metonomy

– also can be thought of an example of gap filling ...– Pustejovsky (1995), Lascarides & Copestake (1995) and Verspoor (1997)

– eventive verbs: begin and enjoy

• Examples:– John began the novel (reading/writing)– The author began the unfinished novel back in 1962 (writing)

• One idea about the organization of the lexicon (GL):– novel: qualia structure:

• telic role: read (purpose/function)• agentive role: writing (creation)• constitutive role: narrative (parts)• formal role: book, disk (physical

properties)

Logical Metonomy


• More Examples: (enjoy)– Mary enjoyed [reading] the novel (reading)

– !!The visitor enjoyed [verb] the door (?telic role)

– Mary enjoyed [seeing] the garden (seeing...)QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (LZW) decompressorare needed to see this picture.author ⇔ read

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

author ⇔ write

Logical Metonomy


• More Examples: (enjoy)– Mary enjoyed [reading] the novel (reading)

– !!The visitor enjoyed [verb] the door (?telic role)

– Mary enjoyed [seeing] the garden (seeing...)

Logical Metonomy

• Multiple telic roles:– Mary enjoyed [seeing] the garden (seeing)

– Mary enjoyed inspecting the garden– Mary enjoyed visiting the garden– Mary enjoyed strolling through the garden– Mary enjoyed rollerblading in the garden– Mary enjoyed sitting in the garden– Mary enjoyed dozing in the garden

Logical Metonomy

• easily defeasible:– He really enjoyed your book (reading)– He really enjoyed [reading] your book–

– My goat eats anything.– He really enjoyed [verb] your book (reading)– (eating)

Logical Metonomy

• easily defeasible:– My dog eats everything.– !He really enjoyed [verb] your shoe (eating)

• very different in character from the other gap-filling examples we’ve seen:– not defeasible– John is too stubborn [someone] to talk to [John]– John is too stubborn [John] to talk to Bill

WordNet and Telic Role Computation

• Example:– John enjoyed [verb] the cigarette (smoking)


• Example:– !John enjoyed [verb] the dirt (?telic role)


• Example:– !John enjoyed [verb] the wine (drinking)


• Example:– !John enjoyed [verb] the door (?telic role)

WordNet Applications

– WordNet Applications. Morato et al. In Proceedings of the GWC 2004, pp. 270–278.

Improvements to WordNet

Machine TranslationInformation Retrieval

Conceptual Identification/Disambiguation

Document ClassificationQuery Expansion

Image Retrieval

(Other)

WordNet Applications

• Examples:– Information retrieval and extraction

• query term expansion (synonyms etc.)• cross-linguistic information retrieval (multilingual WordNet)

– Concept identification in natural language• word sense disambiguation • WordNet senses and ontology (isa-hierarchy)

– Semantic distance computation• relatedness of words

– Document structuring and categorization• determine genre of a paper (WordNet verb categories)

Homework 2

GRE

• Educational Testing Service (ETS)– www.ets.org– 13 million standardized tests/year– Graduate Record Examination (GRE)

• verbal section of the GRE– vocabulary

• GRE vocabulary– word list

• Word list retention– word matching exercise (from a GRE prep book)– homework 2

http://www.ets.org/

Task: Match each word in the first column with its definition in the second column

accolade

abate

aberrant

abscond

acumen

abscission

acerbic

accretion

abjure

abrogate

deviating

abolish

keen insight

lessen in intensity

sour or bitter

building up

depart secretly

renounce

removal

praise

Homework 2

• (for 10 pts)• use WordNet to “solve” the word match puzzle• come up with an algorithm or procedure that

produces a good assignment for words in the left column to those on the right– minimum threshold for acceptable algorithms: 9/10 right

• describe your algorithm and show in detail how it works on the given example

• (you could but you don’t have to turn in a program)


accolade

abate

aberrant

abscond

acumen

abscission

acerbic

accretion

abjure

abrogate

deviation

abolish

keen insight

lessen in intensity

sour or bitter

building up

depart secretly

renounce

removal

praise


accolade

abate

aberrant

abscond

acumen

abscission

acerbic

accretion

abjure

abrogate

deviation

abolish

keen insight

lessen in intensity

sour or bitter

building up

depart secretly

renounce

removal

praise3

2

3

2

2

2

2

Discussion

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Language and Intelligence

• if a computer program can be written to do as well as humans on the GRE test, is the program intelligent?

• Can such a program be written?– Math part: no problem– Verbal part: tougher, but parts can be done right now...

• homework 2 • analogies• antonyms• two essay sections

– (Issue-Perspective, Argument-Analysis)

• a look at the future of educational testing...• www.etstechnologies.com• e-rater

Interesting things to GoogleQuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor




• www.ets.org/erater/index.html



• e-rater FAQs• Q. What's the technology used in e-rater?

– e-rater uses NLP to identify the features of the faculty-scored essays in its sample collection and store them-with their associated weights-in a database.

– When e-rater evaluates a new essay, it compares its features to those in the database in order to assign a score.

– Because e-rater is not doing any actual reading, the validity of its scoring depends on the scoring of the sample essays from which e-rater 's database is created.



• e-rater FAQs• Q. How often does the computer's score

agree with the score of a faculty reader? – Almost all the time. – ETS researchers found exact agreement, or a

difference of only one point, in as many as 98 percent of the comparisons between the computer's scores and those of a trained essay-reader using the same scoring guides and scoring system.



• e-rater FAQs• Q. How do students feel about being

scored by a machine? – Most of today's students have had experience with

instant feedback in computer programs and are becoming more comfortable with the idea of computerized scoring.



– http://www.ets.org/research/dload/iaai03bursteinj.pdf

• CriterionSM: Online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays.

– Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003) – In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovative

Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico. – (This paper received an AAAI Deployed Application Award.)

• e-rater:– trained on 270 essays scored by human readers– evaluates syntactic variety, discourse, topical content, lexical complexity– 50 features

• critique:– grammar checker (agreement, verb formation, punctuation, typographical

errors)– bigram model of English

http://www.ets.org/research/dload/iaai03bursteinj.pdf



– ... recent news on automated bogus paper generation– http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

• SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator– SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer

Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers.

• Achievements:– one out of two papers got accepted at the World Multiconference

on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI)

– Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy

• “We implemented our scatter/ gather I/O server in Simula-67, augmented with opportunistically pipelined extensions.”

Documents

Computational Intelligence 696i Language Lecture 6 Sandiway Fong